Australian Airspace Discussion

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

James,

Personally this system is of very little benefit to me as a Pilot, the aircraft I fly has GPWS, dual TSO Garmin 530 / KLN 89 GPS, MFD, TAWS and Flight Director for coupled approaches.

Why not have one alarm under the supervision of one (or two) pilots? It's called a TSO 146 GPS with terrain assistance and a map of where you are at what height - RAIM alarm of course being one alarm of note.

Many many if not most IFR aircraft in Australia do not have all the toys.

Not really sure you guys understand the concept of automatic ?, the only time this alarm should go off is if an IFR aircraft is making a GRAVE error in altitude.

[T28D]

A GRAVE error is the one where the aircraft is below LSALT and granite enters the scene, too late then.

Lets not have any GRAVE errors please.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

T28D,

You are absolutely correct, but, many of these situations find the aircraft well below LSALT/MSA etc quite sometime before "the sudden stop", this could possibly be a window for ATC to save the day, chances are no one will ever know of the lives they've saved.

[Dick Smith]

James, The trial has nothing to do with ADSB as most aircraft flying into Proserpine are not yet ADSB equipped.

Lefty is correct- the alarm will only go off if everyone is about to die. There will be no false alarms if pilots report when visual-

It works all around the world and in our terminal airspace- why not at Prosepine.

James you primarily support the views of the Canberra bureaucracy- why is that?

[james michael]

LHR

I know what you are intending, the issue is surely how to program a system to recognise the variables associated with

a computer program checking an IFR aircrafts position against protected areas ( LSALT, Grid, MAS, MVA, Approaches)

Then we need to define a 'grave' error in altitude and apply that algorithm to the mix. At this point it is becoming reliance on an ATC getting alarms via a complex program distant from the real action.

Yes, many IFR aircraft are not TSO 146 equipped. The JCP subsidy (Navaid component not ADS-B per se) was to so equip ALL. I believe that alters the equation and places control where it belongs - the person who loses if they make T28's 'grave' mistake, not the ATC.

The other issue is radar and ADS-B coverage. It wasn't designed for cover to ground except where it has a clear view. Probably more effective cover with ADS-B but still not 'global'.

I understand the concept of automatic. I also understand why some alarms are turned off. I believe a lot of VCA could be prevented if the CTA step alarms were enabled - problem is picking an emerging VCA from the other 999 aircraft flying close enough to activate the alarm - but not actually penetrating.

[james michael]

Dick

James you primarily support the views of the Canberra bureaucracy- why is that?

Pardon? I think you mean I don't support YOUR views.

My view is simple - ADS-B is the way of the future, the JCP provides ADS-B and for IFR TSO 146, both subsidised, and the ADS-B project as I know it today offers significant safety and economy benefits for aviation from GA to RPT.

On the other hand you require the radars to be kept for 5 years which turns OFF the ADS-B / TSO 146 subsidy until 2028 and leaves the emphasis with ATC to carry the can in the future plus denying aviation the benefits of ADS-B and denying many IFR owners the benefits of subsidised TSO 146 navigators.

If you call my view "the views of the Canberra bureaucracy" and imply there is something wrong with that, then I believe you are putting your NAS drive for ATC hand holding ahead of reality.

Should I add that you are lucky to get a response from me - I was going to ignore you because you put your own name to your post

[Dick Smith]

James, You have an extraordinary knowledge on these matters yet you hide your identity- why do you do this as it obviously prevents you having the influence you possibly should have?


Why not post your phone number so that Lefty and others can discuss the important issues with you- after all it is obvious that you have a detailed and in depth knowledge of the issues-more than just about anyone I know.

When I posted my phone number here I received lots of phone calls and had a number of really good discussions- I also learnt a lot as there are many things we can be talked about on the phone that are difficult to put in print.

There is no PPRUNE rule that prevents direct phone conversations on such important safety issues that I know of.

[max1]

LHRT,

What we (controllers) are trying to tell you is that the alarms go off all the time.

"An automated program that monitors an aircrafts 3 dimensional position reference, say a GPWS data base, absolutley no input required from the controller unless the aircraft breaks the protected area outside say 5nm of the destination aerodrome and the alarm sounds."

After your conversation with Dick, you seem to be an instant expert on the myriad alarms built into the ATC system, their parameters and how often they would go off. How often do you think an alarm set to your parameters would go off?

I have been told by the people working that airspace North of Sydney that 90% off the time the RAM alert will go off, necessitating "unnecessary" calls to the aircraft, who are trying to monitor the CTAF, tracking for final or avoiding other aircraft. Please don't think that your scenario would only require controller intervention when something IS wrong. As I have said before, the alarms don't go off when something IS wrong but when the computer THINKS something may be wrong.

An example I was given, one inbound , one departing outbound from Port MacQuarie. They have been given mutual traffic. Inbound aircraft starts to manouevre for final, RAM alert as aircraft has flown outside Route Corridor. Controller queries , aircraft already monitoring CTAF, multiple calls made to elicit response. Departing aircraft paints on Radar, STCA alert goes off. Traffic already given, alert goes off anyway.

I don't have an agenda, if I am directed to implement a new procedure, I will do it. My concern is that the procedure is able to be safely done and that I have been given the resources and training to do it safely.

As a PIC your responsibilty is to one aircraft, we are responsible for a chunk of airspace with multiple aircraft. Dick has no idea what really goes on, and what radar coverage really exists. After a conversation with him, please don't come on and quote him as some infallible font of wisdom in regards to the vagaries of the TAAATS system.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

Good morning Max1,

After your conversation with Dick, you seem to be an instant expert on the myriad alarms built into the ATC system, their parameters and how often they would go off. How often do you think an alarm set to your parameters would go off?

Not the case, I was shocked when Mr Smith explained this system was not already inplace.

In a previous life was a RADAR Technician in the ADF, working on much more primitive systems than you are currently operating (SPS 49, 52, 55, Krupp 1006/7, RVP and SYS1 ), and have a intimate understanding of how these primitive systems operate, including the manipulation of code to make these systems work better, so no, Mr Smith is not my mentor on this one.

If these alarms are driving you nuts, the parameters of the programs need to be modified or the alarms are inappropriate and need to be turned off, a computer is simple, garbage in = garbage out, correct the parameters and your hair will probably not fall out a fast.

How often do you think an alarm set to your parameters would go off?

Honestly, NFI, they were just suggested parameters.

[Dick Smith]

It's all very mysterious. The only people who push the $100m ADSB plan are anonymous.

Why doesn't the Department ever say a word to support the ADSB subsidy?

Why doesn't Mike Taylor ever say a word in support of the plan? After all he will be the decision maker on this.

Why doesn't Bruce Byron say something if this is such an important safety initiative?

Why hasn't a public statement or a press release been issued by AsA explaining their support fo the JCP?

Suddenly a new poster appears on this site running a campaign in support of the ADSB subsidy but does not identify who he is or where he came from!

[max1]

Dick,

Gotta love ya. So now you and LHRT are quoting each other as System experts.
LHRT "Dick told me, so it must be true"
Dick " As my learned friend LHRT says"

"Lefty is correct- the alarm will only go off if everyone is about to die. There will be no false alarms if pilots report when visual-"

Aviate , Navigate, Communicate. As it should be.
Dick, ever missed making a call to ATC because you were too busy doing the important stuff, or the frequency was congested,or you were already on the CTAF,etc. "the alarm will only go off if everyone is about to die". Not true, the alarm WILL go off if the pilot doesn't report visual.

It happens all the time, ATC appreciate this (or most do). The onus is on us to chase these.

Dick you say "There will be no false alarms if pilots report when visual-"
Thats a big IF. Also it will inhibit the MSAW warning, but what about the RAM. What are the repercussions if RAM is also inhibited?

Finally Dick, I am vectoring large RPT aircraft, things are tight, sequencing into Sydney, Wx is marginal, lots of chatter on the frequency. Alarm goes off under your scenario and have been going off all day as pilots are aviating, navigating and THEN communicating. What is my main priority? Ignore all the jets until I have established two-way comms and alerted the lighty, make sure I put in an incident report.

What would be the outcome of this report? As far as I'm concerned the pilot was doing the right thing, aviating and navigating, first and foremost. When the report hits the company, would they be stressing the importance of communicating over aviating and navigating, and making it the first priority.

If everyone was perfect we would not even be having this discussion.

[T28D]

Simple Dick, There is no subsidy, there will be no subsidy, and the Technology is unproven.

But for some ADSB is just a good idea, in the main unlike you and me they don't own aircract, they rely on the good will of others to allow them to fly albiet through rental.

But the real truth is they won't have the expense of the CAR 35 orders, the non manufacturer of the airframe inspired modification to standards that will not comply with a U.S. C of A and significantly devalue the aircraft benchmarked against the Blue Book.

All rather sad really, people with no responsibility making imposts on people with responsibilty who substantially don't want this thrust upon them.

[Dick Smith]

Lefty' You are correct -It's not as dificult to do as others make out It is more about resistance to change than anything else.

A MSAW alarm is considered by controllers in other countries to be far more serious than the many types of route monitoring alarms and is so acted on.

Hardly ever will there be a false minimum altitude alarm as it will only sound if the plane is below the legal minimum altitude and has not reported visual or cancelled IFR.

We are so behind international safe practice that we have not even introduced the correct procedures or terminology so this can work in radar covered uncontrolled airspace.

When this airspace was the responsibility of Flight Service Officers they were not permited to use radar so the could not provide a MSAW service and there was not the need for any pilot procedures.

There are new young controllers comming along who believe that this safety feature should be introduced into Australia.

[Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower]

I think its time I did the smart thing and stopped wasting energy on people exhibiting blind ignorance;

Eyes closed, brains off and mouth engaged, good luck with that, I'm going fishing.

The world is flat !!!!.

[james michael]

LHR

Don't under-rate the boat, send it to Dick to help with his fishing on here.

Problem is, people tend to swallow his rhetoric and crusades hook, line and sinker - that's why I am happy to promote an opposing view.

Dick

If you showed the same enthusiasm for making ADS-B and safety move forward as you do for innuendo about other posters and their rights to remain anon - people just might give you their phone number to share information.

It's good to see your positive comments about the new young controllers - you were last at a TAAATS centre ........... when?

ADS-B - the CTAF (A) and your NAS Class E airpace down to 1200' - Nirvana - all it needs now is a God!

[Dick Smith]

Let me give an example of how our system is based in the 1940's - before radar existed.

Imagine a charter flight in a King Air from Broken Hill to Bankstown.

It can't run into any moutains at flight levels in controlled airspace on the en-route section of the flight.

Look what happens on approach to YSBK in the best radar covered airspace in australia.

If still in IMC at WATLE the pilot is instructed by Sydney approach to "leave control area on descent- call Sydney radar 124.55"

We are set up for a classic CFIT as no descent altitude is given by ATC.

Lets say the pilot makes an error and descends too early and is about to hit a ridge in the famous Blue Mountains with peaks to 4000' amsl

Will the radar operator say anything? Unlikely because there is no MSAW enabled in that airspace and ATC would not know if the aircraft was visual and enjoying the view of the mountains as there is no requirement or procedure for the pilot to report when visual.

Flight Safety International states that the two most important mitigators to prevent CFIT accidents are ATC and Radar yet we do not utilse either for IFR approaches at one of the busiest airports in Australia.

But I bet we will within a few days of such an obvious CFIT happening at Bankstown. No extra staff or radar coverage will be required- just a simple change in pilot and ATC calls and the enabling of an already existing MSAW alarm.

But it will probably require at least 6 dead before even the ATSB concrete minds make a recommendation that we actually should use our existing radar to prevent CFIT accidents.

[bushy]

Those pesky little ones??

ASA gets most of it's money from the major airlines, therefore they provide most services to the major airlines.
(airports are the same)
They have to take some notice of the little aircraft because they get in the way of the big ones. There the interest stops.
That's why they want us all to fit ADSB, so they can see us and tell the big fellas where we are.
ASIO, customs, police AUSAR and the military also have an interest in ADSB. (I'm not commenting on whether this is good or bad, just stating what I see as fact) The GA pilot and operator get a small benefit from it.
There is not even VHF radio coverage over the whole country.

[max1]

LHRT,
What inbuilt alarms were on these systems?

Here is a very basic and dirty precis on some alarms in TAAATS.With these alarms we get an aural and visual alarm. With the STCA alarm it is a shrill continuous ringing.The others are more of a beep with a break and then more beeping. You must acknowledge these alarms to stop the noise, the visual cue usually a yellow writing will stay on your screen until you either deselect it or the problem is resolved.Alarms can be turned off manually for individual aircraft or parameters changed off line. Open flightplan, open AUR window which shows all alarms, select which one you want to turn off.Make note on aircraft on screen. To turn back on do the reverse. If you turn this alarm off, it will stay off for all sectors in your 'region'. i.e. if I turn it off and forget to turn it back on, the next sector will not have the alarms.
I'm sure I will be picked up on a few things I don't mention.

Route Adherence Monitoring (RAM) A corridor is built along an aircrafts PLANNED route, it can't allow for the landing runway because you don't know when you plan what your landing runway will be. If the aircraft deviates outside this corridor we get the alarm. Examples include when vectoring, aircraft deviating for weather, on approach to aerodromes, etc.

Cleared Level Adherence Monitoring (CLAM) On radar puts a 200' vertical buffer above and below an aircrafts Cleared Level. After maintaining a level if an aircraft deviates by more than 200' of its cleared level an alarm occurs. Also works on ADS-C and B.
If descent or climb profile reduces to a rate that the computer thinks the aircraft is no longer changing level an alarm will occur e.g. Long haul aircraft struggling to get to their planned level. Descending aircraft stopping off momentarily to avoid bad Wx.

Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA) As long as the computer 'knows' at least one aircraft i.e. we have a flight plan (Flight Data Record,FDR). The processors will look for profiles of other targets that will pass close i.e. may be in confliction. Alarm will go off even if aircraft have been given traffic, because the computer will THINK there may be a problem. Should save the day in controlled airspace. Do not turn off as previously unknown aircraft may come in to play as it climbs into radar coverage.

Danger Area Infringement Warning (DAIW) A no go area warning e.g Some military areas or whatever they want to make it. If on an aircrafts heading or climb profile it may penetrate this area an alarm will go off. Even though I have cleared the aircraft to a level below the area or aircraft will turn prior to the area, the computer looks at the climb profile or heading and works out that there MAY be a problem and alarm goes off. Controller may have accidently cleared aircraft to level, or on heading, inside the area and is saved.

LHRT the alarms go off all the time, the situation is usually under control but we get the alarms anyway. There are lots more 'bells and whistles' Minimum Safe Altitude Warnings (MSAW), Missed Position Reports (MPR) specific ones for ADS aircraft. Amended Route Conformance Warning (ARCW) where the FMS Flight Plan doesn't equate to ours.
Estimated Time Over (ETO) where the pilot and system estimate don't agree. There are yet more alarms to tell us that there is a problem with the automatic transfer of co-ordination messages with other centres.

A lot of thought goes into the enabling/disabling of these alarms. If the benefit of the alarm going off spuriously, is outweighed by the time it will save the situation it will stay on. Individual disabling of alarms is not the norm because of the slight chance of it not being re-enabled, or the situation it was disabled for e.g STCA that another situation occurs and the 'protection' is lost.

LHRT there is a lot more to the enabling/disabling of alarms, and their parameters, than the simplistic view that you and Dick have. Those of us that deal with them on a daily basis, under all sorts of situations, tend to be the knowledgeable ones. I hope this has brought some enlightenment. I am now off to watch the AFL GF.

Dick, I have no problem doing what you propose re- MSAW, just give us the training, surveillance and staff to do it. What I don't agree with is your attitude that it is a simple thing to do that 'wouldn't cost anything'.

The pilot accidentally descends, OR the pilot is not on correct frequency, the controller has other situations happening, the pilot gets visual and descends below LSA but doesn't advise centre as he/she is busy or the frequency is congested. The boy who cries wolf scenario develops, there really is a problem, but due to all the 'not real' alarms people become desensitised and the disaster occurs anyway.

[Dick Smith]

Max, That is not my belief, however, just to trial the procedure, say at Bankstown or Proserpine would have minimal cost.

I would even be prepared to fund the cost of the trial if AsA are that short.

[james michael]

Dick

Did not FSI also state that 50% of CFIT occur to aircraft without GPWS?

Was that not their safety alert?